| Let's base decisions
about biotechnology on science, not fear
By Norman E. Borlaug
 |
| Norman E. Borlaug |
In 2000, I served on a joint U.S.-European
Union Biotechnology Consultative Forum to look at the full range
of issues that have polarized thinking about biotechnology, especially
in food and agriculture, on both sides of the Atlantic.
While significant differences of opinion existed, most of the U.S.
and European experts on the panel agreed that agricultural biotechnology
holds great promise to make dramatic and useful advances during
the 21st century. The most prestigious national academics of science
in North America and Europe have come out in support of genetic
engineering to improve the quantity, quality and availability of
food supplies.
Unfortunately, the debate about the safety and utility of genetically
modified (GM) crops continues to grow and now looks to be heating
up further. The U.S. is considering filing a challenge at the World
Trade Organization to break the European
Union’s four-year moratorium on importing GM crops. Although
the European Commission agrees that the ban needs to be lifted,
various member states refuse to do so until more stringent GM labeling
regulations are put in place.
There have always been those in society who resist change. However,
the intensity of the attacks against GM crops is unprecedented,
given the potential environmental benefits that such technology
can bring by reducing the use of pesticides. Genetic engineering
of crops is not some kind of witchcraft, but rather the progressive
harnessing of the forces of nature to the benefit of feeding the
human race. The idea that a new technology should be barred until
proven conclusively that it can do no harm is unrealistic. Scientific
advance always involves some risk of unintended outcomes.
Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa says he’s been told by anti-biotechnology
groups that donated American corn is “poison” because it contains
genetically modified kernels. Based on such misinformation, he is
willing to risk thousands of additional starvation deaths rather
than distribute the same corn Americans have been eating for years
with no ill effects.
Some other African leaders whose people also are facing hunger
and starvation say they’re afraid to accept genetically modified
corn because its pollen will “contaminate” local corn varieties
with dire environmental consequences.
If low-income, food-deficit nations—which desperately need access
to the benefits of science and technology—are being advised by governments
and pressure groups in privileged nations to reject biotechnology,
there is reason for serious concern.
Current GM crop varieties that help to control insects and weeds
are lowering production costs and increasing harvests—a great potential
benefit to all Third World farmers. Future GM products are likely
to carry traits that will improve nutrition and health. All of these
technologies have more benefits to offer poor farmers and consumers
than rich ones.
For example, Kenya is ready to field-test virus-resistant sweet
potatoes that should yield 30-50 percent more of this important
food staple. Virus-resistant bananas and potatoes have already been
bred, but are being barred in African countries where people urgently
need their higher yields. Indian researchers are developing a vaccine
against the epidemic livestock disease, rinderpest, which can be
genetically engineered into peanut plants. African farmers would
be able to protect their draft animals simply by feeding them the
peanut plants.
The needless confrontation of consumers against the use of transgenic
crop technology might have been avoided had more people received
a better education in biological science. This educational gap,
which results in ignorance about the challenges and complexities
of agricultural and food systems, needs to be addressed without
delay. Privileged societies have the luxury of adopting a low-risk
position on the GM crops issue, even if this action later turns
out to be unnecessary. But the vast majority of humankind does not
have such a luxury, and certainly not the hungry victims of wars,
natural disasters and economic crises.
Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot
expect to make progress in world health, prosperity and peace. Responsible
biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is.
Adapted from an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street
Journal, “Science
Vs. Hysteria,” Jan. 22, 2003.
Norman E. Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize-winner and father of the
Green Revolution, spoke to students, faculty and alumni during a
three-day visit to Purdue in February.
|
